Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
all the renderings of the new towers rising on 57th Street, Billionaires' Row, seem to have one thing in common: no balconies. or terraces.
no doubt this omission comes from the extremely small square footage of each floor and, I would think, from the height of the buildings (not sure a balcony would be pleasant some 90 stories up).
still….I have to wonder…
isn't outdoor space virtually essential as part of the QOL of the luxury condominium. Look at penthouses whose strongest selling point is their outdoor space.
I can't imagine wanting and spending on such luxurious places as these condos without having the ability to walk outside from my residence.
am I alone in such thought or do others question the idea of luxury condos with no balcony or terrace?
A small balcony in a high-rise is one of the most overrated amenities, in my experience they rarely get used for their intended purpose. Additionally they are ugly to look at.
A small balcony in a high-rise is one of the most overrated amenities, in my experience they rarely get used for their intended purpose. Additionally they are ugly to look at.
Less so if recessed.
Despite being to nyc numerous times, iwas unaware balconies were rare. Id sayhere in chicago, balconies andterra es are more the norm.
220 Central Park South, 111 West 57th Street, and probably the Park Lane tower will all have terraces. 252 West 57th Street has lots of balconies, so the premise of the thread is flawed.
220 Central Park South, 111 West 57th Street, and probably the Park Lane tower will all have terraces. 252 West 57th Street has lots of balconies, so the premise of the thread is flawed.
I question it being a flawed premise. at 65 floors, i don't know if it qualifies for one of the super falls on 57th St.
are there any of the 1000+ ft towers that will have extensive balconies?
Plus, they're probably part-time residences for many owners. And the owners also likely own other properties that have plenty of outdoor space.
Bingo. Anyone buying in billionaires row probably has a place in the Hamptons, or Bermuda, or wherever. They can be in East Hampton in a few minutes, via helicopter.
But some of the new towers do have outdoor space. 220 CPS has outdoor space, as does One Park Lane. In fact every unit at One Park Lane will have outdoor space.
Note too that these are terraces, not balconies. Balconies are considered undesirable in high-end Manhattan buildings. That's more associated with "commieblock" type housing from the 1960's, like something you would see in Warsaw or East Berlin.
Note too that these are terraces, not balconies. Balconies are considered undesirable in high-end Manhattan buildings. That's more associated with "commieblock" type housing from the 1960's, like something you would see in Warsaw or East Berlin.
Odd that a balcony would be considered negative. What do you mean by a terrace?
There's another issue here. Balconies (possibly as opposed to roof terraces, but I'm not sure) go against a building's allowable floor area ratio under zoning. So if you build a balcony, every square foot you put outside is one less square foot you can have inside. And inside space is much more useful. When a developer is selling units for something like $7,000/sqft, every square foot counts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.